By: Alimatu Kargbo
The alleged incitement case involving Zainab Sheriff intensified at Pademba Road Court No.1 in Freetown, as she made her sixth appearance before Principal Magistrate Mustapha Braima Jah.
Madam Sheriff is facing two charges, incitement and the use of threatening language, contrary to the Public Order Act of 1965.
Prosecutors allege that on January 31, 2026, at the Brima Attouga Mini Stadium in Freetown, she made statements capable of inciting violence against individuals accused of election rigging and “cheating eight million people.”
However, the defence lawyer Pushes for dismissal of the said allegation in court.
Counsel Roland Wright mounted a strong “no case submission,” arguing that both charges are fundamentally flawed and should be dismissed.
He contended that the incitement charge is invalid in both form and substance, noting that the law requires a clear statement specifying the offence allegedly incited, such as murder, theft, or forgery. According to him, the charge against Sheriff merely states “incitement contrary to law,” without identifying any specific offence, rendering it incomplete and legally defective.
Wright further argued that the particulars of the offence are vague and uncertain, failing to clarify whether the alleged statements referred to past or future elections, or identify any victims. He maintained that this lack of clarity puts the defence at a disadvantage and strips the court of jurisdiction.
On the second count of threatening language, Wright said the charge also fails because it does not identify any specific individual targeted by the alleged threats. He added that even the video evidence presented does not support incitement, noting that a prosecution witness admitted under cross-examination that he was not incited after watching it.
“There is no victim, no clear offence, and no evidence of incitement. The accused has no case to answer,” Wright submitted.
State Counsel Yusuf Isaac Sesay strongly opposed the no-case submission, defending both the validity of the charges and the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
He argued that the charges were properly framed under Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 8 of 2024 and are legally sound. Sesay emphasized that incitement does not need to target a specific individual, as it is often directed at the public and can take the form of suggestions, advice, or encouragement.
The prosecutor further highlighted that the state presented two witnesses and eight exhibits, including video evidence, which he said clearly demonstrates intent through the accused’s words and body language.
Sesay urged the court to dismiss the defence arguments, insisting that the prosecution has established sufficient evidence to proceed and ultimately secure a conviction.
After hearing arguments from both sides, Magistrate Jah adjourned the matter to March 31, 2026, for a ruling on the no-case submission.
The pending decision is expected to determine whether Sheriff will be discharged or ordered to open her defence in what is shaping up to be a closely watched case.
